whats so hard to understand? under the circumstance that you and I agree that if we get into dispute we would take our problem to judge J…, are we both likely to agree to go to to J1 for whom there is greater evidence of competence or or J2 for which there is not? (or evidence that j2 is positively a bad judge)
That’s not what Irenicus was talking about. Your example is completely irrelevant.
Well, no objective proof is required because none can be provided
All judgements are necessarily subjective, and so their only “objective” value is in the fact that either the judge or the judgement is accepted by both the accuser and accused.
But Irenicus is correct - those courts which will be most frequently used will be those which are most meticulous and most often correct/fair.
Oh. Ooooooh. I see.
Finally, somebody who understands the reality of libertarianism.
How? – because all you need is consent over the terms of arbitration.
Once every party in the dispute agrees on an arbitrator, it really does not matter how the arbitrator arrived at his decision. That and the fact that there is no such thing as real proof. There can only be convincing arguments and substantiation but never any real objective proof.
Yes, yes and yes.
That is not to say that we can not treat things or principles as objective truths.
It is not that nobody bothers with proof. Of course, an arbiter will look at “proof” but true proof does not exist. The only thing that is really provided is convincing arguments.
Even if God came down and provided The Proof™, whether you realize it or not you would still be stuck with the physical reality that every sentient being faces: your own perception. So, objective reality can certainly exist however, you, as an individual, will always appreciate it through your own senses. Your senses are subjective. Thus, in a practical sense, reality is always and everywhere subjective – unless of course you are God.